eddington

Most people only heard about it after the second confirmation in 1919 when Eddington measured gravitational lensing during an eclipse.

At least, not because of the Eddington limit – (hydro)dynamics would play a role.

There's a related phenomenon in astronomy called Eddington Bias.

The Eddington limit is a linear function of mass, so the accretion onto a collection of objects would not differ from the accretion onto a single object.

As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

The Quora reply was very illuminating: the astrophysicist mentions that Einstein and Eddington already suggested the same solution as Mitra did long before him, but most people today don't think it's the correct one.

If these each then accrete matter from the space surrounding them, they do so independently and each can accrue mass faster than a single singularity of equivalent total mass could while adhering to the Eddington limit.

> If these each then accrete matter from the space surrounding them, they do so independently and each can accrue mass faster than a single singularity of equivalent total mass could while adhering to the Eddington limit.

As an example, Arthur Eddington describes quantum uncertainty as a consequence of the fact that the language of physics switched from referring directly to physical phenomena, to describing our knowledge of these things; so when we only have partial knowledge, we frame our descriptions in terms of probabilities.

It seems somewhat odd to say that Tycho Brahe was not doing science when he compiled unprecedentedly accurate astronomical tables that were the foundation for revolutions in the way we understand the universe, or to say that Arthur Eddington was not doing science when he measured the deflection of light during a solar eclipse.

Surprisingly, the lifetime of the largest stars is only 3 million years: For massive stars that are dominated by radiation pressure and shine near their Eddington luminosity LE = 1.3 × 1040 erg s−1(M⋆/100M⊙), the lifetime is independent of stellar mass M⋆ and set by the 0.7% nuclear efficiency for converting rest mass to radiation, ∼ (0.007M⋆c2)/LE = 3 Myr (El Eid et al., 1983; Bromm et al., 2001).

>As an example, Arthur Eddington describes quantum uncertainty as a consequence of the fact that the language of physics switched from referring directly to physical phenomena, to describing our knowledge of these things; so when we only have partial knowledge, we frame our descriptions in terms of probabilities.

Robert Rutledge on Twitter: "A super Eddington (at 500 Msun) X-ray source, from a GC in M31, where a GRB went off an hour ago.

By definition science can't answer the question, "is there a reality that is outside science and what is its nature?" That's what I think Eddington is saying.

"The bending of space under the influence of gravity can cause light to curve around massive objects." == Scientific Hypothesis (Verified by Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse observations).

The rate at which a black hole can accrete matter is limited by the "Eddington accretion rate" or the "Eddington limit." Above the Eddington limit the gas gets so hot as it accretes onto the black hole that radiation from the infalling gas blows away the rest of the gas.

Sir Arthur Eddington: Let us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean.

You can even get one with a sample size of 1 -- Eddington's solar eclipse experiment is an example of that.

These sorts of discoveries are therefore providing evidence that the simple bottom-up picture may not be correct and either super-Eddington accretion, mergers, or direct collapse is necessary to form these black holes.